IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
Kamlesh Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 2753 of 1998 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 11.11.1998 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No. 202/1996; Decided on 29.6.2022
(1) Witness -- related witness -- sister and wife of injured -- undoubtedly, they are close relatives of injured but only on that basis, their evidence cannot be discarded -- they are natural eye witnesses of incident -- houses of injured and accused are situated near field where they were reaping crop -- their evidence appears truthful as their presence in field appears natural. [Para 15
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 307 and 324 -- nature of injuries -- doctor did not give any opinion about nature of injuries -- in absence of specific opinion by doctor, view that injuries were simple in nature cannot be said to be incorrect -- injured remained in hospital only for 11 days -- injuries do not fall within purview of S. 307 -- they were caused voluntarily but accused had no intention to kill -- act shall fall u/s. 324. [Paras 25, 28 & 31
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- intention or knowledge is material -- not consequence of actual act done for purpose of carrying out intention -- intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder -- intent is a state of mind -- cannot be proved by precise direct evidence -- can only be detected or inferred from other factors -- some relevant considerations may be nature of weapon, place where injuries were inflicted, nature of injuries and circumstances in which incident took place. [Para 29
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 307 and 324 -- injuries simple in nature -- injured and accused are from same family -- they have land dispute -- accused gave two blows but five injuries found on person of injured -- although one injury is on vital part of body, i.e., neck but all injuries to be considered simple in nature as doctor who has opined that one injury was life threatening, has not given any specific finding as to how it was dangerous to life -- injuries caused voluntarily but not with intention to commit murder -- conviction u/s. 307 set aside -- convicted u/s. 324. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 33 and 2015 (9) SCALE 237 followed. [Paras 34 & 35
¼1½ lk{kh && ukrsnkj lk{kh && {kfrxzLr dh cgu rFkk iRuh && fuLlansg og {kfrxzLr dh fudV dh ukrsnkj gSa] ijarq ek= ml vkèkkj ij mudk lk{; R;ä ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && og ÄVuk dh LokÒkfod çR;{kn'kÊ lk{kh gSa && {kfrxzLr v©j vfÒ;qä d¢ Òou ml [ksr d¢ lehi fLFkr tgk¡ og Qly dkV jgh FkÈ && mudk lk{; lR; çrhr g¨rk gS D;¨afd [ksr esa mudh mifLFkfr LokÒkfod çrhr g¨rh gSA ¼iSjk 15
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 307 rFkk 324 && {kfr;¨a dh çÑfr && fpfdRld us {kfr;¨a dh çÑfr d¢ ckjs esa d¨Ã jk; ugÈ nh && fpfdRld dh fofufnZ"V jk; d¢ vÒko esa] ;g n`f"Vd¨.k xyr ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd {kfr;k¡ lknk çÑfr dh FkÈ && {kfrxzLr ek= 11 fnol fpfdRlky; esa jgk && {kfr;k¡ èkkjk 307 dh ifjfèk esa ugÈ vkrÈ && og LosPN;k dkfjr dh xà ijarq vfÒ;qä dk oèk djus dk vk'k; ugÈ Fkk && ÑR; èkkjk 324 d¢ vèkhu vk,xkA ¼iSjk 25] 28 ,oa 31
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 307 && vk'k; vFkok Kku rkfRod gS && vk'k; vFkok Kku ,slk g¨uk vko';d t¨ gR;k xfBr djus d¢ fy, vko';d g¨A vk'k; eu dh fLFkfr gS && lVhd çR;{k lk{; ls lkfcr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && vU; dkjd¨a ls irk vFkok vueku yxk;k tk ldrk gS && dqN lqlaxr fopkj.kh; ckrsa gfFk;kj dh çÑfr] og LFkku tgk¡ {kfr;k¡ igq¡pkà xÃa] {kfr;¨a dh çÑfr rFkk og ifjfLFkfr;k¡ g¨ ldrh gSa ftuesa ÄVuk ÄVhA ¼iSjk 29
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 307 rFkk 324 && {kfr;k¡ lknk çÑfr dh
&& {kfrxzLr rFkk vfÒ;qä ,d gh ifjokj d¢ && mudk Òwfe dk fookn && vfÒ;qä us n¨ okj fd, ijarq {kfrxzLr dh nsg ij ik¡p {kfr;k¡ ikà xÃa && ;|fi ,d {kfr 'kjhj d¢ ekfeZd vax vFkkZr xnZu ij gS] rFkkfi lÒh {kfr;k¡ lknk çÑfr dh ekuh xÃa D;¨afd ftl fpfdRld us jk; nh fd ,d {kfr thou d¢ fy, ladVe; Fkh] mlus bl ckjs esa d¨Ã fofufnZ"V fu"d"kZ ugÈ fn;k fd og fdl çdkj thou d¢ fy, ladVe; Fkh && {kfr;k¡ LosPN;k dkfjr ijarq gR;k djus d¢ vk'k; ls ugÈ && èkkjk 307 d¢ vèkhu n¨"kflf) vikLr && èkkjk 324 d¢ vèkhu n¨"kfl)A 1993 lIyh- ¼2½ ,l lh lh 33 rFkk 2015 ¼9½ Ld¢y 237 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34 ,oa 35
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.11.1998 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in ST No. 202/96 (State of MP v Kamlesh Patel) whereby the appellant/Kamlesh Patel has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine further three months R.I.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 16.3.1996 at around 9:30 am, Rajmani Patel (PW-1) resident of village Gahira who was brought at Police Sation Govindgarh lodged FIR stating that he and Kamlesh Patel has dispute over ancestral land and due to that enmity today at around 8:00 am when he at the behest of his son Sunil was going to meet a nurse in Korian Maholla reached almost 20 steps away from Sukhendra’s house, Kamlesh armed with battle axe came from the opposite side and told him that “you are posing yourself as a rogue” and gave a battle axe blow on his neck causing injury from neck to ear. At this, he raised an alarm and reached at Sukhendra’s house there Kamlesh gave another battle axe blow causing injury in his left rib. Budhsen and Sukhendra witnessed the incident. When other persons of the village reached there, Kamlesh Patel fled away from the spot. Kamlesh Patel with an intention to kill him has given battle axe blows on his person. He has been brought to police station by Shrinivas, Ramadhar, Molai, Shyamlal and Shukendra. At the time of registration of FIR, scribe of the FIR noticed injuries on the person of Rajmani Patel. As per the narration given by Rajmani Patel (PW-1) FIR Ex. P-1 was registered in Police Station Govindgarh at FIR No. 27/96 for commission of offence under sections 307, 341 and 323 of IPC by S.I. R.K. Singh (PW-10). He filled Ex. P-9 medical form and sent him to Government Medical College, Rewa for medical examination. He sent Ex. P-10 letter to the Magistrate for recording Rajmani’s dying declaration .
3. In Medical College Rewa, Dr. D.S. Kapoor (PW-8) examined Rajmani Patel (PW-1) aged 30 years and found 5 incised wounds on his person. He referred him to surgical department for further treatment and gave Ex. P-6 report. In surgical ward Dr. A. Dildeep (PW-7) examined Rajmani Patel (PW-1) and found five incised wounds on his person. He prepared Ex. P-2 summary sheet of bed head ticket.
4. In course of investigation, ASI Janakdhari Sen (PW-9) visited place of occurrence and prepared site map Ex. P-7 before witnesses. He recovered blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure memo Ex. P-8 before witnesses. He recorded the statements of witnesses Sukhendra, Pushpa, Chunki, Mulai, Shrinivas, Bisunthiya, Sunil, Rajmani and Budhsen under section 161 of Cr.P.C., Seized articles were sent for chemical examination with Ex. P-11 memo FSL reports received are Ex. P-12 and 13.
5. After completion of investigation, Police Govindgarh filed charge sheet against appellant/accused Kamlesh Patel for commission of offene under sections 307, 341 and 323 of IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewa who in his turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Case was transferred to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa for disposal in accordance with law.
6. Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa framed charge against the appellant/accused for commission of offence under section 307 of IPC. Appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 prosecution witnesses namely Rajmani Patel (PW-1), Pushpa (PW-2), Bisunthiya (PW-3), Chunki (PW-4), Shrinivas (PW-5), Badri Singh (PW-6), Dr. A. Dildeep, (PW-7), Dr. D.S. Kapoor (PW-8), ASI Janakdhari Sen (PW-9), SI R.K. Singh (PW-10), Molai (PW-11), Rajmani (PW-12) and Rajeev Shrivast
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The judgment establishes that the intention of the accused and the circumstances of the act are pivotal in determining the offense under Section 307 I.P.C., and the nature of the injuries alone is no....
The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, including the intention of the accused and the nature of the act, are crucial in determining guilt.
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.